tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 22 14:04:57 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: agentive -wI'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: RE: agentive -wI'
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:04:53 -0800
From: <[email protected]>
> HoHwI'wI' - "my killer". Did I hire him to kill someone else, or did someone
> else hire him to kill me?
>
> muHoHwI' - "one that kills me". Someone hired him to kill me.
SuStel:
> This sort of thing only makes semantic sense when the subject of the
> verb-that-isn't is third person. The following example words would
> seem to be nonsense:
> choHoHwI'
> qaHoHwI'
> juHoHwI'
> jIHoHwI'
> maHoHwI'
Just to play Fek'lar's advocate, why are these nonsense? <choHoHwI'> - you who kill me. An example: <qatlh chojoy'nIStaH choHoHwI' mIgh? HIHoH neH jay'!>. To me, this is not really much stranger than <muHoHwI'>.
My feeling for the <-wI'> suffix is that the person (or object) described by the verb has the verb as his defining characteristic, at least in whatever context it gets used. A <HoHwI'> is someone who kills - that's what he does.
The moment you start adding verb prefixes, you get into specifying who is being killed and maybe even who is doing the killing - you start talking about specific situations rather than general description. That just doesn't fit. It's time for <-bogh>.
Note that I do *not* have a problem with adding suffixes to verbs with <-wI'>, within reason. A <QoylaHbe'wI'>, to use Qov's example, is unable to hear - that's his defining characteristic in this context.
> The comparatively large number of these, combined with a restriction
> on prefixes and /-ghach/ given to us by Okrand, are sufficient to
> convince me that prefixes shouldn't be used on verbs with /-wI'/,
> even if you could glean something sensical out of it.
> Clarity of */muHoHwI'/ over /HoHwI'wI'/ is nice and all, but often
> the ambiguous things are the ones that win.
DaH wa' DoS wIqIp.
pagh